Treasure Island Former and Current Residents v. United States of America

Background

The plaintiffs’ earlier amended complaint had been dismissed because its allegations were too vague and gave the defendants little idea how to respond. The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint and, with the court’s permission, a third amended complaint, which was the operative complaint in this order. Several defendants moved to dismiss it.

Claims Against Forman and Clark

The plaintiffs alleged that Keith Forman and David Clark violated bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court described this as a request to extend a Bivens remedy—a damages remedy recognized by courts in limited circumstances for constitutional violations by federal officials—to a new context. The court declined to create that new remedy, explaining that expanding Bivens is disfavored and that the Supreme Court has consistently refused to extend it to new contexts or categories of defendants. The court also stated that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged the claim or given a good reason for creating a new category of Bivens liability.

The plaintiffs also asserted a claim for false and misleading statements against Forman and Clark. The plaintiffs acknowledged that, if the two defendants acted within the scope of their United States Navy employment, the Federal Tort Claims Act would provide the exclusive remedy and the plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies would bar the claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not rebutted the Attorney General’s certification that Forman and Clark acted within the scope of their employment. The court further found that the allegations remained impermissibly vague and conclusory.

Claim Against San Francisco

The plaintiffs asserted a claim against the City and County of San Francisco under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell for bodily-integrity violations under the Fourteenth Amendment. A Monell claim seeks to hold a local government responsible for an unconstitutional policy, practice, or decision attributable to the government. The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations and arguments were conclusory and unsupported by facts. It rejected as speculative the plaintiffs’ assertion that San Francisco must have controlled or ratified the conduct of its employees because of its efforts involving Treasure Island’s development.

Unserved Defendants and Disposition

The third amended complaint added Amy Brownell, Robert Beck, Anthony Chu, Shaw Environmental Inc., and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. The court stated that the docket did not show that any of these defendants had been served, even though 14 months had passed since the third amended complaint was filed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court ordered that these defendants would be dismissed without prejudice unless the plaintiffs filed, by September 12, 2022, a statement demonstrating good cause for the failure to serve them. The court also stated that the case would be closed unless the plaintiffs made that showing.

For the claims addressed in the order, the court concluded that a fifth opportunity to amend was not warranted because of the plaintiffs’ failure to serve multiple defendants and the continuing conclusory nature of the allegations. The Bivens and fraud claims against Forman and Clark, and the Monell claim against the City and County of San Francisco, were dismissed with prejudice. The order did not state a separate disposition for every allegation in the third amended complaint beyond the claims and unserved defendants identified above.